Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Skuzzy on April 24, 2006, 12:32:48 PM
-
The proposed law scheduled to be introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (backed by the Bush administration) also does the following:
• Permits wiretaps in investigations of copyright crimes, trade secret theft and economic espionage. It would establish a new copyright unit inside the FBI and budgets $20 million on topics including creating "advanced tools of forensic science to investigate" copyright crimes.
• Amends existing law to permit criminal enforcement of copyright violations even if the work was not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
• Boosts criminal penalties for copyright infringement originally created by the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 from five years to 10 years (and 10 years to 20 years for subsequent offenses). The NET Act targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site if the value exceeds $1,000.
• Creates civil asset forfeiture penalties for anything used in copyright piracy. Computers or other equipment seized must be "destroyed" or otherwise disposed of, for instance at a government auction. Criminal asset forfeiture will be done following the rules established by federal drug laws.
• Says copyright holders can impound "records documenting the manufacture, sale or receipt of items involved in" infringements.
If there was ever a day when the people of this country should be calling, emailing, and/or writting thier Congress person, it should be today.
Also worth noting. Lamar Smith apparently enjoyed large donations of capital, for his campaign, from the RIAA. Campaign contribution reform cannot happen fast enough as far as I am concerned.
-
some day in my dreams the RIAA will be destroyed and the world will go back to normal. :noid
-
It is not law yet, but it is on its way to being law. I encourage everyone to write to thier representatives. I have already done so.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
some day in my dreams the RIAA will be destroyed and the world will go back to normal. :noid
Now if we could frame that organization by posting pictures of Mohammed, your wish can came true. :t
-
"... even if the work was not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office"
:O
That's extreme!
-
The laws on the books and new ones introduced in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act are more than enough for law enforcement to crack down on large -scale piracy organizations.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
"... even if the work was not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office"
:O
That's extreme!
Not really. Any work created is copyrighted by the author, even if it is not registered by the Copyright Office.
-
Yeah so posting next door neighbours 3-year old kids scribbling on a UBB will warrant for a wiretap at your house. Joy!
-
BSD, GPL, etc?
-
I think it should be named "The Pure Evil Act."
"Even the current wording of the DMCA has alarmed security researchers. Ed Felten, the Princeton professor, told the Copyright Office last month that he and a colleague were the first to uncover the so-called 'rootkit' on some Sony BMG Music Entertainment CDs--but delayed publishing their findings for fear of being sued under the DMCA."
This act will move the entire IPR system and business models further out-of-whack with the 21st century.
Attorney General Gonzales endorses the bill using "terror hysteria" that proceeds from copyright infringement are used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."
This bill will add more powers to the current bill that has been used to restrict parody and satire, force ISPs to reveal p2p user identities, limit streaming radio, prevent cellphone/service unlocks and prevent fair use DVD copying.
Couple this with the coming end to net neutrality tricked, bought and paid for by the major telecoms (using your money under the completely misleading campaign of "Saving our internet!"), and you've created a black hole of monopoly to trap innovation and squash creativity and startups.
The major media and largest websites will have the money to outbid independent sites for access through your provider. If Amazon pays your provider more, you'll get fast connection to Amazon.com, but will have sit and wait for any other booksellers website to load. After waiting and waiting time for each page view from the non-Amazon site, you'll simply go to Amazon out of frustration.
-
"the sky is falling"
Don't steal copyrighted material.
-
Shut up, Nuke.
-
Here's some good gouge on contacting your representatives:
http://ipaction.org/blog/2006/04/bill-hollywood-cartels-dont-want-you_24.html
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
"the sky is falling"
Don't steal copyrighted material.
Lets see what you say when you buy a DVD for $50 you can only watch 3 times before its license expires.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Lets see what you say when you buy a DVD for $50 you can only watch 3 times before its license expires.
No need to wait for the DMCA to be abused.
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/?f=unintended_consequences.html
-
im totaly gonna wiretap the next dude that quotes me
-
The worst part of that bill is civil forfeiture. If they base it on drug-related forfeiture, it WILL be massively abused as the system is designed with huge loopholes.
It's pathetic how our government is controlled by the corporations to the extent that they don't even try to hide it anymore.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
"... even if the work was not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office"
:O
That's extreme!
Presently you can't go after damages unless it's been registered with the office. Doesn't affect who owns the copyright.
What I find very amusing about this is how diametrically opposed it is to the Orphan Works bill. What are they gonna do, wiretap the big company who steals the little guys work, then say "Well, they looked for you as the copyright holder?"
All hail the mighty government who's motto is "My pocket first."
-
Government of the People, by the Politcal Elite for the Corporations
-
Originally posted by Debonair
im totaly gonna wiretap the next dude that quotes me
:rofl :aok
-
Lamar... like Hedley lamar???
-
Skuzzy, got a form letter I can plagarize real quick? I don't mind sending one off but I'd think you've got more knowledge on this subject then I do...
-
Well, Hedy Lamar ("The Most Beautiful Girl in the World") did invent and patent 'frequency hopping' in 1942. The same technology we use for wi-fi, digital cellphones and other defense systems today.
It was patented as a "Secret Communication System" for topedo guidance using sychronized switching of frequencies matched by paper rolls similar to rolls used in player-pianos.
She never received a penny in royalties. It was commercialized and re-patented just after her patent expired.
(http://tech-rep.org/images/getpic.jpg)
-
Except for that first point which should be revised... I don't see what the big deal is.
Skuzzy, if you wrote a game, and boxed versions hit the shelves @ $50 each. Then, I cracked a copy and put it on a torrent for the whole world to grab for free... wouldn't you wan't me punished for theft?
Same thing applies to DVDs, DCMA, and the RIAA in general. Don't like the prices? Their business practices? Okay, so don't pay for the service or product. You are in no way entitled to it. People that use the RIAA as justification for theft is kinda sad. I think my dad was on to something when he told me that two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do.
-
I have no problem with copyright protection. Point 1 is an abuse by the government, and point two allows point 1 to be used without any cause. The whole point of this law is a way to allow invasion of privacy.
Here is another fact. Current copyright laws are only loosely enforced. They do not need to be changed as much as they need to be enforced. Without enforcement, no book laws are going to do any good. The governement has no intention of enforcing the laws, they appear to be looking for legal methods to ease invasion of privacy.
Vudak, I will see what I can do for a boilerplate.
-
"enforcement, no book laws are going to do any good. The governement has no intention of enforcing the laws, they appear to be looking for legal methods to ease invasion of privacy."
thats what it looks like to me.......... along with an easy claim to ones properties .
That in itsself is a violation to our constitutional rights .
so here now you record a tv show to watch later ...and in thru the door comes (the copy cat cops) :(
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Well, Hedy Lamar...
Raoooooooowrrrrrrrrrrr! (posthumously I guess)
-
Originally posted by indy007
Except for that first point which should be revised... I don't see what the big deal is.
Skuzzy, if you wrote a game, and boxed versions hit the shelves @ $50 each. Then, I cracked a copy and put it on a torrent for the whole world to grab for free... wouldn't you wan't me punished for theft?
Same thing applies to DVDs, DCMA, and the RIAA in general. Don't like the prices? Their business practices? Okay, so don't pay for the service or product. You are in no way entitled to it. People that use the RIAA as justification for theft is kinda sad. I think my dad was on to something when he told me that two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do.
Do you like the right to listen to music on an MP3 player? Do you like the right to listen to your music in your car? The RIAA are trying to take that away... I kid you not.
-
I blame Clinton
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
"the sky is falling"
Don't steal copyrighted material.
Now Skuzzy is one of the most adamant people Ive come across when it comes to being against copyright theft.
If he's against this. there most be something wrong with it.
-
What I am against is the fact they are using this ploy to allow an easy path for wire-tapping.
With this, the President will not have to take heat for illegally tapping into whoever they want to tap into. All they have to do is *suspect* someone is violating copyright law, and any notion you have about privacy is lost.
That is all this law is about. If they were really all that hot to protect copyright information, they would enforce the laws on the books right now. This administration will not get out of office fast enough for me.
If you really think this is about copyright law, then you have not been paying attention to what has transpired in the last year or so.
I have not altered my stance on the theft of copyrighted works. It's wrong, it's illegal, and no amount of rationalization will make it right.
-
Still don't see a problem. The wiretapping part does not say "illegal" wiretapping will be done. Just like any criminal investigation, I'd take it that they would have to get a warrant to tap someone.
Nothing really new about that, unless I've missed something.
-
Bush does not think a warrant is needed for wire-tapping. He has authorized it with absolute impunity. A precedent has been set, and it will continue. This is just another method to let go unabated and grant more excuses for our government officials to intrude on our privacy.
-
Bush authorized wire-tapping with impunity? Don't think so.
Also, it's a proposed law that you are worried about. The government has always been able to get warrants to wiretap Americans with a warrant while investigating a crime. Does this proposed law state that wire-tapping will be done without a warrant, just for the hell of it?
You might know more than I do about the proposed law, but my gut tells me you are being a little worked up over nothing.
-
Mine says Bush is good as long as he keeps it fed.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
:rofl :aok
OK that's it.
i pwn
yo' phwn
(http://johnnyr.com/images/blecky2004-07-08.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
Bush authorized wire-tapping with impunity? Don't think so.
Yes, he has and continues to do so, without warrants. All in the name of 'fighting terror', which this law is also being asked to be passed for. To help fight terrorists.
Look, you want to sit by and let this slide by, fine. That is your option and your opinion. I would appreciate it if you would just move along.
I posted this for the benefit of those who do participate in our process. To give them time to write. You think this law is fine, then write to your representative and let him/her know your opinion.
-
Here Mr BigNUKE, do you know what document this is from?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
Still don't see a problem. The wiretapping part does not say "illegal" wiretapping will be done. Just like any criminal investigation, I'd take it that they would have to get a warrant to tap someone.
When you "legalize" something, it is not illegal anymore. Welcome to the obvious.
As it stands now, a warrant is not obtained in a lot of cases. The reason being is the tap is not usualy on the "target" itself, but on others to 'go up the ladder" so to speak. Info obtained through these taps are never used in court. Not used in court, no warrant needed. It is just a tool to get to where they wish to go.
-
Does this proposal have a number attached to it as of yet for reference?